Entries from October 2006 ↓

Via Andrew Norton’s blog, I’ve come across a very interesting paper [PDF] by Andrew Leigh at the Australian National University (Andrew is also a blogger). The paper details Andrew’s research into which social and economic determinants most affect trust in Australian society.

The abstract reads:

Using a large Australian social survey, combined with precise data on neighbourhood characteristics, I explore the factors that affect trust at a local level (‘localised trust’) and at a national level (‘generalised trust’). Trust is positively associated with the respondent’s education, and negatively associated with the amount of time spent commuting. At a neighbourhood level, trust is higher in affluent areas, and lower in ethnically and linguistically heterogeneous communities, with the effect being stronger for linguistic heterogeneity than ethnic heterogeneity. Linguistic heterogeneity reduces localised trust for both natives and immigrants, and reduces generalised trust only for immigrants. Instrumental variables specifications show similar results. In contrast to the USA, there is no apparent relationship between trust and inequality across neighbourhoods in Australia.

Of particularly interest to Muslims, is that Andrew found that linguistic fractionalisation is a far more significant determinant of localised trust than ethnic fractionalisation. In other words, cohesive communities seem to be built more on a shared language than a shared ethnicity or culture. Although the ‘debate’ about Muslims not learning English has, at times, taken on a fairly nasty tone and some Muslims have been as defensive about the issue as other commentators have been aggressive, Andrew’s findings seem to support the idea that developing a proficiency in English is, perhaps counter-intuitively, the most important ingredient for a successful and cohesive multicultural society.

ABC Radio National Background Briefing’s detailed investigation into the institutions and contract structures for “Islamic” finance here in Australia should make sobering listening for Australian Muslims. It (at least superficially) bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the other Islamic marketing scheme, “Islamic education”.

Although the report is 50 minutes in length, it rewards the listener’s attention. It also highlights the economic phenomenon of “regulator capture”, whereby those regulatory authorities (in this case, Shariah Supervisory Boards) become captured by, or accommodate those that they regulate. Tarek al Diwani puts forward a compelling case for authentic Islamic finance and argues that sheikhs who audit contracts must not be paid by those companies whom they regulate.

Continue reading →

The former head of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils and current chairman of the Prime Minister’s Muslim Community Reference Group (MCRG) was interviewed by Stephen Crittenden on the ABC’s Religion Report this morning about his most recent controversy. It certainly makes interesting listening (listen/download here). Take particular note of the closing questions where one can hear someone else in the background seemingly telling Ameer Ali what to say.

As Crittenden says at the conclusion:

I don’t know about you, but I had the peculiar sensation that I was interviewing two Dr Alis there.

And after reading Dr Ali’s letter to The Australian and his letter to the Muslim community, one can understand how he feels.

In comments on the post below, Baybers links to this article in Britain’s Telegraph written by a Janet Daley. Using the recent niqab debate as a launching pad, Daley moves into a discussion about whether the state has the right to force people to be free and whether constituents have an obligation to accept all of the freedoms that are provided to them.

Does a woman have a “right” to repudiate the freedom to be treated as an equal by society? No, she does not. If mandated democratic governments have passed laws that say that women should be educated, enfranchised and treated the same as men by the law, then that is the judgment of the nation as a whole and should be accepted by all those who reside here.

Being “free” does not mean that you can pick and choose among the freedoms that are on offer, as if the political culture were a supermarket. It is as much an undertaking on your part to uphold the responsibility of freedom as it is the undertaking of the government to safeguard it. Under this formulation, freedom does not mean what you choose it to mean: it means what the nation as a whole has decided is in the best interests of all the people.

Continue reading →

British MP Jack Straw has generated considerable controversy in the United Kingdom over recent comments critical of the niqab (face veil). He is, of course, entitled to his point of view and, as Abu Eesa has mentioned, we should welcome the opportunity to explain to non-Muslims what the niqab means. As he writes:

Islamically speaking, the majority of scholars consider the covering of the face for an adult Muslim female with the face-veil or niqāb in the presence of non-related adult males as a religiously praiseworthy action, whereas a minority considered it an obligatory act. Thus, for a Muslim woman to remove her veil in the presence of ‘foreign’ men would be considered abominable at the very least and at its most serious, totally prohibited.

Islamic Law recognizes that the niqāb can be removed for various civil needs such as that maybe suggested by Mr Straw, particularly the Hanbali school of legal thought as confirmed by the eminent Jurist Ibn Qudamah in his masterpiece al-Mughni. Muslim women have the choice in various scenarios to remove the veil for a certain need as detailed in the legal texts yet her desire to not become too friendly or involved with ‘foreign’ males shouldn’t leave at least other female members of the community in despair. Indeed, maybe one should debate the great problem that non-related men exactly have if certain Muslim women don’t wish to develop relationships with them, even in the most insignificant sense. Does one sense male insecurity here? Hurt male pride? Now that’s a thought.

Continue reading →

Following his recent comments, Ameer Ali, former head of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils and current chairman of the Prime Minister’s Muslim Community Reference Group has written an interesting letter to The Australian thanking them for their role in the ‘debate’ about Islam.

I WOULD like to thank the editorial team of The Australian for encouraging an open debate and analysis of religious texts (“Brave stand on Muslim honesty”, Editorial, 5/10).

I would also like to thank your reporter Richard Kerbaj for clarifying (“Muslim cleric calls for ban”, 5/10), through the words of Keysar Trad, that the Holy Prophet was perfect as far as human beings go, but the wisdom of God Almighty is always greater. This is what I had intended to say in my comments published on Wednesday (“Prophet not perfect, says Islamic scholar”).

Taj Din al-Hilali’s support for my call for a modern reinterpretation of Koranic text is most welcome. It certainly bodes well for Australian society when the national spiritual leader sends such important, progressive messages. I have had the opportunity to speak to him and clarify my position on the Holy Koran and the Holy Prophet and all these matters will become clear when my academic paper Closing of the Muslim Mind is released later this month.

It is curious how Moustapha Kara-Ali, who only weeks ago was touted as an open-minded, progressive Muslim, has shown his true colours by criticising the inalienable right to question and analyse religious texts and by comparing my comments to the Danish cartoons. This debate has certainly shed light on some prevalent attitudes within the Australian Muslim community and paved the way for a healthy internal debate.
Dr Ameer Ali
Murdoch University, WA

Continue reading →

I had been meaning to put up a comments and posts policy for some time but having just been made aware of a potentially defamatory comment that had slipped through the net, I think it is appropriate to clarify our policy on such matters. I have added a link to our policies and will update and expand these as necessary.

Firstly, we reserve the right to delete comments. However, we will generally only remove comments that include offensive language, are abusive, illegal, unrelated to the topic, too long, or potentially defamatory. If we delete someone’s comment, we will endeavour to let them know (if they have provided a valid email address). In extreme cases, we may place people in moderation or ban them from the site completely.

Secondly, this is a group blog. As such, it should not be assumed that the posts of any one individual necessary reflect the views, opinions or ideas of the other authors or the Austrolabe site. Each author is alone responsible for the content of their posts.

Thirdly, whilst we will make a best effort to moderate any offensive, defamatory or illegal comments posted to this site, we will not accept responsibility for them. By commenting on this site, you accept that you and you alone are ultimately responsible for your words and whatever consequences may arise from them.

Lastly, it is possible and indeed likely that, from time to time, there will be offensive or other inappropriate comments that slip through. Please do let us know if you see anything that you think is unacceptable and we will take action immediately.

John Howard’s favourite Muslim, Ameer Ali has detailed his beliefs in an interview published in today’s Australian newspaper. The former head of AFIC is reported to have said:
“Dr Ali, who is writing an academic paper entitled “Closing of the Muslim Mind”, said even Mohammed was not the “perfect model” as most Muslims believed. Asked if the prophet had character flaws, he said: “Of course – you must look at him as a human being also.”

He goes on to say:

“There are verses about slavery, and the Koran says you must be kind to the slaves. So are the Muslims saying we must have slavery to be kind?”

which I think demonstrates wonderfully, the depth of his own understanding of Islam.

The full article is here

If he has been fairly reported, it just highlights just how unrepresentative of mainstream Muslim opinion and belief, the Prime Minister’s Muslim Advisory Council is.

Thanks to Nafesa for the link.